| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow |
| Date: | 2014-03-04 19:04:04 |
| Message-ID: | 531623A4.709@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 03/04/2014 11:23 AM, Joel Jacobson wrote:
> I understand that from a technical perspective, the mandatory
> BEGIN...END you always need in a PL/pgSQL function, is a new block,
> and the variables declared are perhaps technically in a new block, at
> a deeper level than the IN/OUT variables. But I would still argue the
> expected behaviour of PL/pgSQL for a new user would be to consider the
> IN/OUT variables to be in the same block as the variables declared in
> the function's first block.
>
No they are not. Teaching a new user to consider them as the same is
simply wrong.
The parameters belong to a block that matches the function name. The
outermost block has a different name if supplied (I usually use <<fn>>),
or is otherwise anonymous. Lots of code quite correctly relies on this,
including some I have written.
This isn't a mere technical difference, and there is surely zero chance
that we will label use of it an error under any circumstances.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-03-04 19:20:10 | Re: Fwd: patch: make_timestamp function |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2014-03-04 19:00:58 | Re: Fwd: patch: make_timestamp function |